Delhi High Court
Pravinder @ Moti vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 24 May, 2016
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.05.2016
W.P.(CRL) 1267/2016
PRAVINDER @ MOTI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. R. S. Kundu, ASC and Mr. Ankit
Kumar Gulia, Adv. with SI Sandeep
PS Vasant Kunj.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official
respondent to release the petitioner on parole so as to enable the latter to find
a suitable alliance for himself as well as to re-establish family and social ties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2016 whereby his
representation for parole on the above ground was rejected by the competent
authority for the following reasons:-
W.P. (CRL) 1267/2016 Page 1 of 4
"(i) The convict is not entitled for parole, as per
para 11.5 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines 2010
which provides that "A minimum of six months
ought to have elapsed from the date of
termination of the previous parole". The
convict has previous availed 01 month parole
upto 27.10.2015 by the order of DHC.
(ii) In the absence of requisite police verification
report regarding verification of address and
grounds taken by convict from concerned
police authorities i.e. DCP, South District, New
Delhi and SHO, PS Vasant Kunj, Delhi which
could not be obtained despite several requests."
3. A perusal of the above-stated reasons reveals that in so far as the
reference to para 11.5 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines 2010 is concerned, the
same has become irrelevant, inasmuch as, a period of more than six months
has elapsed since the time the petitioner last availed parole. Insofar as, the
other reason is concerned, it is trite to say that the petitioner cannot be visited
with the consequences of the apathy of the administration in failing to
furnish the police verification report in time. Even otherwise, the residential
address of the petitioner has since been verified by the police.
W.P. (CRL) 1267/2016 Page 2 of 4
4. There is no gainsaying the legal position that every convict is entitled
to parole periodically so as to enable him to renew and re-establish social ties
and for his physical and mental well-being.
5. In the present case, a perusal of the nominal roll qua the petitioner
reveals that he has already undergone more than eight years and four
months' incarceration out of the total sentence of ten years awarded to him.
Further, the conduct of the petitioner in jail has been satisfactory since the
very inception of his incarceration.
6. In view of the foregoing, I see no impediment in granting parole to the
petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of
four weeks from the date of his release subject to his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall report to SHO PS Vasant Kunj
(North) once a week every Friday during the period of
parole.
(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the National Capital
Territory of Delhi during the period of parole, without
the prior permission of this Court.
W.P. (CRL) 1267/2016 Page 3 of 4
(iii) The petitioner shall also provide the SHO, Police
Station Vasant Kunj (North) with his mobile
telephone number which he undertakes to keep
operational.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the jail
authorities at the expiry of the period of parole.
7. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
8. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court
Master to learned counsel for petitioner.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
MAY 24, 2016/dk
